Value’s are subjectively decided, but can be objectively observed. No need to accuse me of what I do and do not know. I am not attacking you, and you have no need to attack me or my understanding.
For follow up on ethics/rights/morals see
When you purchase something your actions become objectively visible. People can see that you preferred the ford taurus to the honda civic, otherwise your purchasing would have been different.
I can’t tell you what you should or should not care about. Why do you assume I’m telling you what to do?
I am criticizing your moral theory but not from the standpoint of another moral theory. I’m criticizing it based on facts of reality. For example, man cannot fly and does not have wings. No moral theory need apply.
On the contrary your saying that all moral theory’s are nonesensical and you proceed to lump them into one catagory. I simply demonstrated to you how some “moral theory’s” can be practiced, and how others, such as the one you mentioned, cannot.
Your welcome to worship your birds as you see fit. In fact if it brings that much utility to you and your followers more power to you. Seems like a cheap way to be happy.
That would depend on your definition of utilitarianism. After re-reading the thread I see that there are several versions floating around and no one has bothered to clarify.
I’m sorry whats my moral theory exactly? I don’t remember telling you
Wait.. Seriously?
Please try and calm down. Try not to read too far into my posts. I get a sense that you are giving my post more credit then it deserves, and in a bad way.
Why would you even consider proving yourself to me? If you are being sincere in your arguments, then back them up. If you’re just trolling, then leave.
First you accuse me of trolling.
Told me what my moral beliefs are, without me even telling you what that is…
And now your calling me a whiner? Can you please tell me where I am trolling? Whining? And where I tell you what my moral “Theory” is?
Otherwise give it a rest dude. Antagonism does not grant more credit to your argument(and I don’t even know what your argument is).
What do you think you’re doing? You think you’re debating? If you sincerely wanted to debate you would argue a point which had to do with the issues at hand, not your hurt feelings or your fragile emotional state.
Don’t lie now. I told you an attribute of your moral beliefs, not “what your moral beliefs are.”
I don’t have to know a person’s blood type to tell them attributes of their blood.
I think your confused, what your doing is not called debating. A polite discussion is fine. An petty childlike internet argument, not really. I’d rather not be badgered, harrassed, and insulted. Typically people who can hold themselves in a discussion don’t need to resort to such crude and desperate measures to defend themselves. The louder you are does not mean the more correct.
So now you know attributes of my moral beliefs? =D
lol. If only one could look into the internet mirror and see themselves. I think it’s fairly obvious who the emotionally excited one is.
The truth is you haven’t any idea what my moral belief system is, not even the details, and I’ll ask you to stop making claims on my behalf regarding the things I believe. Thanks!
At some point you should probably calm down.
Well that was certainly not my intention. I was attempting to show why it would be better for society, and those African children in the long run if an entrepreneur is allowed to retain his wealth rather then have the state apparatus redistribute an entrepreneurs wealth e.g Bill Gates fortune. I did not believe that those Children would derive greater utility from Bill gates fortune if they took it from him via force. And to be honest, I wasn’t trying to prove which one would derive greater utility relative to the other.
I was merely trying to show how both would be better off (or rather society) in the long run (from a utilitarian perspective) if a free market was allowed to operate,
My reason for doing this was to demonstrate (using an Austrian or a free market economists perspective of the economy) how utilitarianism can justify a free market.
Once again, let me state for the record, I’m not a natural law “rightist” or a utilitarian. I was simply trying to show why I believe that Scott was making an error to cast aside Hayeks work because it is “utilitarian drivel” and that using the morality of utilitarianism does necessarily result in collectivism.
